In his speech, Kashkari called for three crucial steps:

• “Breaking up large banks into smaller, less connected, less important entities.”
• “Turning large banks into public utilities by forcing them to hold so much capital that they virtually can’t fail (with regulation akin to that of a nuclear power plant).”
• “Taxing leverage throughout the financial system to reduce systemic risks wherever they lie.”

That’s from a Business Insider account of his speech.

Kashkari, who ran the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program under both President George W. Bush and President Obama, worked for Goldman Sachs’ San Francisco office before his government job. After leaving the Treasury Department, he joined Newport Beach-based PIMCO. While he lost to Gov. Jerry Brown in a landslide, he was still considered an up-and-comer in California politics before moving to Minneapolis last year, where he assumed the Fed post in November. If he does seek California office again, as some political observers expected, his speech will likely be a focus for its perceived populist themes.

‘It’s very hard to see crises coming’

The Washington Post, Politico and many other East Coast media treated Kashkari’s comments as highly newsworthy and provocative. Reuters called his ideas “radical.” In a subsequent interview with the Post, Kashkari said, given the unpredictability of the global economy, it’s smart to adopt reforms during relatively stable periods to prevent future shocks before they happen:

If you look around the global economy, there’s a lot of uncertainty. There are people who are concerned about China’s slowdown and whether it’s going to be a hard or soft landing. All of those are out there, but it’s very hard to see crises coming.

 

Nobody was omniscient enough to call $100 oil or $150 oil a bubble. I’m not saying that it was a bubble; I think it’s supply and demand forces. But certainly nobody forecast it going down to $30. That’s just an example of an exogenous shock. Everybody’s eyes were open. None of the smart people saw it coming. What else don’t we see coming? …

 

[It] isn’t clear to me that just keeping investment banking separated from depository lending is necessarily by itself a solution. If we go back to the root causes of ’08, we had a nationwide delusion that home prices only go up. I participated in that delusion: I bought a house in California in 2005. Traditional banks made a lot of bad loans based on the premise that if home prices keep going up, these loans are going to be okay. …

 

To really be strong enough against a shock we haven’t thought of, we would either need much, much higher capital requirements — the banks are already pushing back hard against the capital surcharges — or we need to look at much stronger or more intense stress scenarios.

Kashkari, 42, a Hindu native of Ohio, has undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign. He worked as an engineer for TRW in Redondo Beach before going to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School for his MBA, which led to his Goldman Sachs job. When Goldman Sachs chairman/CEO Henry Paulson became U.S. secretary of the treasury in 2006, he hired Kashkari as an aide, laying the groundwork for his appointment as the assistant treasury secretary overseeing TARP.

Republicans, by contrast, have been more timid. A few party figures have stepped forward, but bold-faced names have not, leaving a big opening for someone with a good network and deep pockets.

Indicative of the state GOP’s challenges and opportunities, Neel Kashkari declined to run for the seat Boxer will vacate in the U.S. Senate. In fact, he did not even go public himself with the news, allowing adviser Aaron McLear to tell CNN that he would not make a bid.

Last November, Kashkari lost a bid to unseat Gov. Jerry Brown, 60 percent to 40 percent.

But another big-name Republican who has played in California politics has opted against a Senate bid for a much different reason. Carly Fiorina failed to beat Boxer in 2010.

Now the former Hewlett-Packard CEO’s ambitions are higher. She has enough money to start a campaign to succeed President Barack Obama.

Fiorina’s ability to parlay a Senate loss into a national campaign has underscored the wisdom of Kashkari’s determination to sit out 2016. As Tim Alberta observed at National Journal, the Golden State has given driven politicos on the right a powerful path to national significance:

“Though she could not overcome California’s liberal electorate in her 2010 Senate race, Fiorina showed significant improvement on the stump over the life of the campaign. Her 10-point loss did not tarnish her stature as a rising star among Republican women; in fact, her opportunities and exposure have steadily increased. She served as a vice chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012. Her successful takeover of the [American Conservative Union] Foundation board last year was the clearest indication yet of her political chops — and ambition.”

Kashkari’s own gubernatorial run was widely seen as a way to build authentic party goodwill and significant name recognition. Those were two resources best put to use in winnable races, or in the quest for a position in a future Republican administration in Washington, D.C. Kashkari served in the Treasury Department of President George W. Bush.

A shifting demographic

Fiorina’s loss to Boxer and Kashkari’s loss to Brown dramatized the demographic difficulties facing California Republicans with an eye on the Senate. The state’s demographic changes have continued to shift in a direction that doesn’t initially favor the GOP.

“Most of California’s new voters are Hispanic, and they tend to register as Democrats or as independents,” Southern California Public Radio reported. “Republican voter registration has withered to 28 percent, while Democrats hold 43 percent.”

Nevertheless, the upside-down numbers might “create an opportunity for the GOP. Some analysts have suggested that a big field of Democrats could dilute the party’s vote in the Senate primary, allowing one or two Republicans — Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Oceanside is among those considering a bid — to slip into a November runoff.”

As it turns out, Chavez, a retired colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps., admitted his interest has been driven by the encouragement of state party figures. “Chavez, whose district includes much of north coastal San Diego County, said leaders in the state’s Republican Party asked him to consider running. He said he doesn’t have a timetable for when he’ll make a decision,” U-T San Diego reported.

Arnold II?

Finally, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was nearing the end of his term in office, rumors swirled that he might run for Boxer’s seat in 2010, or for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat in 2012.
Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, “A spokesman for the 67-year-old actor said Mr. Schwarzenegger isn’t considering a Senate run.”

He has been busy with the new “Terminator” movie, which was advertised during the Super Bowl.

Unless he changes his mind, at this point the Terminator’s days in political office are finished.

He won’t be back.

The 2016 election, according to the Associated Press, will be “a free-for-all among a new generation of California Democrats.” With the help of California’s Top 2 Primary, California Republicans even have an outside chance of capitalizing on that anticipated Democratic free-for-all. If multiple Democrats split the primary vote, two Republicans could make the runoff and win the seat that’s been held by Boxer for two decades.

That very long-shot nearly happened in the 2014 race for state controller. Democrats Betty Yee and Speaker of the Assembly John Perez nearly lost out to Republicans David Evans and Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin. After finishing second to Swearengin in June, Yee ultimately won in November.

Democrats confident in diverse bench

As CalWatchdog.com reported yesterday, “Boxer’s retirement is the beginning of the changing of the guard in state politics.” California Democrats’ oldest guard, party Chairman John Burton, 82, confidently predicted Democrats would hold the seat in 2016.

“As difficult as it is to imagine California without Barbara Boxer looking out for us in the U.S. Senate, we’re confident California Democrats will have plenty to choose from when it comes to electing their next U.S. Senator,” Burton, an old San Francisco liberal, said in a statement.

So, who are those Democrats ready to take over as Boxer’s successor? Possibly the strongest candidate is one of her former staff members, a man who has gone on to have a successful political career in his own right.

Treasurer John Chiang leads field of potential challengers

On paper, State Treasurer John Chiang, who worked for Boxer early in his career, might be the strongest candidate to succeed her in 2016.

“Senator Boxer has been a stalwart champion for environmental, social, and economic justice,” Chiang said in a statement. “It was an honor to work with Senator Boxer, and I wish her the very best.”

Chiang, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, doesn’t get top billing from political insiders, in part, because he’s been willing to buck the Capitol establishment. When state lawmakers failed to pass a balanced budget on time in 2011, Chiang withheld their paychecks, a move that was heralded by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. As state controller, he also opened up the state’s books by publishing payroll data for hundreds of thousands of public employees.

Those decisive actions have helped Chiang appeal to moderate Republicans and independent voters. It also explains why he received the most votes in the November election after Gov. Jerry Brown. In 2014, Chiang raised more money than either Attorney General Kamala Harris or Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, both of whom receive more hype as Boxer’s potential successor.

Do Harris, Newsom have a pact?

The first names mentioned by the inside-the-Beltway crowd, Harris and Newsom, are sending signals that they won’t run against each other for Boxer’s seat. The two constitutional officers, who share political consultants, SCN Strategies, put their unity on full display earlier this week. Newsom was sworn in for his second term as lieutenant governor by “his good friend” Harris.

Of the two, Harris is expected to run for U.S. Senate, giving Newsom a clear path to governor in 2018. That’s subtly reinforced by their campaign websites. There’s no mention of the AG’s office on Harris’ campaign homepage, KamalaHarris.org, while Newsom’s still mentions he’s lieutenant governor.

But Harris could run into trouble in her campaign for U.S. Senate. Although she cruised to reelection in 2014, she had a competitive race in 2010, when she narrowly defeated Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. After leading in the polls, Cooley plummeted when he publicly admitted that he’d “double dip,” collecting a pension and his paycheck.

Steyer, Villaraigosa also formidable challengers

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, another strong contender, is sending mixed signals about his interest in the race. Bloomberg’s Jonathan Allen reported the 61-year-old Democrat is “seriously considering” a run.

But according to the Wall Street Journal, “A person close to Mr. Villaraigosa said a Senate campaign was unlikely for the former mayor. ‘The only seat he cares about is running for governor. He has been a legislator and he’s been an executive, and if he wanted to continue his political career, it would only be as an executive,’ the person said.”

Another Democrat playing it coy is billionaire Tom Steyer. In the 2014 midterm elections, Steyer’s Next Gen Climate PAC spent $74 million on liberal candidates. Politico reported last month that liberal activists at a League of Conservation Voters event in New York City were encouraging Steyer to consider a U.S. Senate campaign. “Tom has consistently said that he will consider the best ways to have the biggest impact,” Chris Lehane, Steyer’s political consultant, wrote in an email to Politico.

GOP candidates: Sundheim, Del Beccaro

Among the first Republicans to react to Boxer’s retirement news was San Diego County Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric.

“Being a far left Senator, Barbara Boxer never met a tax increase, regulation, or intrusion on personal freedom she didn’t support,” said Krvaric, one of the state’s most successful GOP party leaders. “Californians deserve a Senator who understands the needs of the average citizen — not out-of-touch San Francisco elites.”

That, at least momentarily, signaled the possibility that California’s top Republican official, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, might be considering the race. However, Faulconer quickly said he wasn’t interested. Other Republicans who’ve thrown cold water on a bid: former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Rep. Darrell Issa.

That leaves two former chairmen of the California Republican Party as the only Republicans who are exploring bids: Tom Del Beccaro, a Bay Area author and attorney who served as CA GOP chairman from 2011 to 2013; and Duf Sundheim, another Bay Area lawyer who served as party chairman from 2003–2007.

“If I did run, I would run a very different campaign,” Sundheim said in a statement announcing his intent to explore the race. “What I am exploring is whether such a campaign is viable.  My plan is to go around the state, listen to the dreams people have for themselves, their family and their community and then decide.”

Other potential candidates include Democrat Steve Westly, a former California state controller; and Republicans Neel Kashkari, who lost to Brown for governor last year; Meg Whitman, the Hewlett-Packard CEO who lost to Brown in 2010; and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed sources close to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, a Democrat, said she isn’t interested in running.

Votes are still being counted in the California election, but the results so far raise some thoughts and questions.

Labor or Business — and the winner is?

Both sides can point to victories — and defeats. Business-supported candidate Catharine Baker, a Republican, surprised labor official Tim Sbranti, a Democrat, in Assembly District 16.

Ben Allen in Senate District 26 was also a big-business win in a Dem vs. Dem race.

Business kept the two-thirds barrier up, which will come into play on many policy discussions over the next two years

Labor scored with Tom Torlakson in the school superintendent race, where he beat reformer Marshall Tuck. Although the race was nonpartisan, both were Democrats.

In the swing vote on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, labor’s candidate Sheila Kuehl prevailed.

Up and down the state it looked like both sides could claim some satisfaction, but business insiders seemed pretty happy with the November results.

Education — reversing party loyalties?

The education issue, if handled correctly, could benefit Republicans by moving Democratic constituencies toward Republicans on education. This is what Neel Kashkari hoped to do by labeling education a civil rights issue.

Look at the recent Field Poll on the Tuck-Torlakson race. According to the poll, Tuck was preferred by double-digit margins among the state’s Latino and African American voters and by 7 percentage points by Asian-Americans.

Opportunity is knocking. Will the Republicans answer?

Tuck-Torlakson — an indication of things to come?

Can two Democrats qualify for a statewide office under the top-two primary? If so, you are likely to see reformers versus the status quo causing tears in the Democrats’ muscle.

Might it happen in the next cycle in races for governor, or lieutenant governor or attorney general?

(By the way, for those keeping score, Kamala Harris got 2,000 more votes in her re-election as attorney general than Gavin Newsom did for lieutenant governor, as of this writing.)

Do we really want that two-thirds supermajority?

Could it be that the governor and some Democrats are grateful they didn’t get the two-thirds standard? Now they can more easily resist the pressure of interest groups by saying, “Why bother? The Republicans won’t let us go there.”

Keeping to the script – over the decades.

Gov. Jerry Brown emphasized fiscal restraint, as he did in his 1978 re-elect. He won by 19.5 percentage points in November back then by supporting Proposition 13 after it passed in that year’s June primary.

This gubernatorial re-election (Act 2), he said no to Proposition 30 tax extensions and said he will control spending. Brown won by 18 percentage points.

How much does it cost to lose an election?

Meg Whitman spent $140 million and lost to Jerry Brown by 13 percentage points. Neel Kashkari spent $7 million (including the primary) and lost by 18 percentage points.

Analysts are saying Kashkari’s candidacy showed how “moderates” were taking over the Republican Party. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported tonight:

“his advancement was viewed by many Republicans as a hopeful sign of the ideological direction of the party. Many members of the GOP’s professional and political classes believed Kashkari, a moderate who supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights and a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, could boost the party’s efforts to appeal to young voters and minorities.”

But Whitman held the same positions, yet still lost big — despite spending $180 million of her own money.

And for that matter, Arnold Schwarzenegger held similar views. Although he won two elections, the denouement of his administration in 2010, with record $13 billion in tax increases and $20 billion deficits, along with personal and other scandals, would preclude him winning again — assuming term limits allowed him to run in the first place.

So the GOP still hasn’t figured out how to get back in the game of the Golden State.

Brown

Brown’s victory leaves him with large political capital in the state to advance his pet projects, including making environmental restrictions even tighter and building the $68 billion high-speed rail project.

Then there’s the siren call emanating from the Oval Office on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 3,000 miles to the East.

But things may not go as well for Brown in his fourth and final term as governor as they have in his first three terms. If the national economy tanks, the deficits will come back with a vengeance. And the state’s pension problems just keep growing, his 2013 reform but a drop in a Pacific Ocean of unfunded liabilities.

In the Field Poll released today, the last before next Tuesday’s election, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown holds a commanding, 21-point lead over Republican challenger Neel Kashkari, 54 percent to 33 percent.

Brown has conducted scarcely any campaign at all, largely paying for TV ads featuring him touting Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond measure; and Proposition 2, for a stronger rainy-day fund.

The Brown Magic, under the slogan, “California is back!” has transcended a national trend of voters revolting against governors in states with sluggish economies. Also today, the Wall Street Journal featured a front-page story headlined, “How the Economy Is Stoking Voter Anger at Incumbent Governors.” Subhead, “Despite rising consumer confidence, Republican and Democratic governors struggle in Florida, Colorado, Michigan and Connecticut.”

Nowhere in the article are Brown and California mentioned. Yet California’s economy, despite surface appearances and soaring Silicon Valley, is sluggish at best. Its unemployment rate in September was 7.3 percent, fourth worst among the states — and higher than all four states featured in the Wall Street article.

And California’s poverty rate, when the cost of living is taken into account, remains the nation’s worst.

Kashkari has tried to cash in on such realities, such as by spending a week as a homeless person. But nothing has caught on in a battle against an incumbent governor who learned state politics at the knee of his father seven decades ago.

Superintendent of public instruction

The major race up for grabs is for the officially non-partisan office of superintendent of public instruction. The two candidates, incumbent Tom Torlakson and challenger Marshall Tuck, are neck-and-neck at 28 percent. Both are Democrats. Torlakson comes from the currently dominant teachers-union faction in the party, while Tuck comes from the newer faction of education reformers.

Undecideds come in at a high 44 percent, compared to just 13 percent undecided in the governor’s race.

The party breakdowns also are pretty close. The most interesting one is that Torlakson gets just 28 percent, the same as overall, among his fellow Democrats, not a good sign. Tuck does drop 4 points, to 24 percent, among Democrats. But the undecideds rise to 48 percent.

Basically, even his fellow Democrats — supposedly the party of his major union backers — aren’t keen on keeping Torlakson around.

Among Republicans, Tuck is ahead, 32-25, with 43 percent undecided. Given that this likely is a “Republican” year for voting — with Democrats not having as much reason to turn out at the polls — that could be good news for Tuck.

Among the increasingly large “No party preference” section of the electorate, Torlakson gains his largest lead, with 31 percent. Although Tuck holds his own, at 28 percent, with 41 percent undecided.

The race for this office may be the principal beneficiary of the Top Two reform, which voters passed as Proposition 14 in 2010. Although the superintendent’s office is non-partisan, party identification still creeps in strongly.

Under the old system, several candidates would be on the Nov. 4 ballot, one of them a Republican with little chance of winning in a Democratic state.

But Top Two cut out all but two candidates, both Democrats, allowing Tuck to challenge an incumbent who otherwise would have been entrenched.

Lieutenant governor

The race for lieutenant governor sees Republican challenger Ron Nehring pulling within 10 points of incumbent Democrat Gavin Newsom, 47-37. Newsom is best known for having suggested his post should be abolished if it wasn’t given more duties.

A Newsom victory would set him up as a major contender to succeed Brown in 2018. In February, he came out questioning the high-speed rail project dear to the governor’s agenda and heart. It might be a way to distinguish himself from the governor.

Nehring is a former state GOP chairman who, as with other down-ticket Republicans, has found it difficult gaining traction in a heavily Democratic state headed by a popular Democratic governor.

Attorney General

Incumbent Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, enjoys a 13-point lead over her GOP opponent, Ron Gold, leading 49-36.

An easy Harris win would position her as the major contender with Newsom for the governor’s spot in 2018. She also has been touted as a top candidate to replace outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

And both Harris and Newsom, after their expected victories, would be well positioned to run for Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s seat should she decide not to run in 2016.

Controller and Treasurer

Republicans have put much hope in Ashley Swearengin, the Fresno mayor running for controller. Although she is doing better than other Republicans on the ballot, she’s still falling short. Democrat Betty Yee, a member of the Board of Equalization, is ahead by 8 points, 44-36, with 20 percent undecided.

Likewise, the treasurer’s race sees Democrat John Chiang, currently the state controller, ahead of Republican Greg Conlin by 11 points, 46-35, with 19 percent undecided.

Insurance commissioner

The insurance commissioner’s race has gained increasing importance because of Proposition 45 on the ballot. It would give the commissioner approval over medical insurance rates.

Incumbent Democrat Dave Jones is ahead of Republican challenger Ted Gaines by 12 points, 45 to 33 percent, with 22 percent undecided.

Summary

In sum, if the Field Poll numbers hold, Republicans still haven’t found a way to gain traction against Democrats in the Golden State.

On the positive side, the GOP this time definitely has a different look than in the past, especially with Kashkari and Swearengin. Gone are the high-profile candidacies of the mega-wealthy Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman, who left in their wake nothing for the party to build on but bad memories — and, in Arnold’s case, a legacy of record deficits and tax increases.

In their place are candidates willing to get out and fight it out in the trenches to build a new party. It’s a start.

The development has been a long time coming, but only an unexpected sequence of events made it possible. Thanks to an unusual combination of court rulings, scandals and personalities, the Golden State’s electoral landscape has shaped up almost perfectly to offer Republicans a rare opportunity for a public reset on image and substance.

That has added new urgency to some long unanswered questions about how best to balance changes in presentation with changes in policy platforms. Even more significantly, however, the current political moment has given the initiative to a somewhat new breed of moderate-to-liberal Republicans.

The mix of issues that has resonated most with California voters this fall may not be enough for a dazzling Republican victory. But it has proven more than enough to recast the state GOP’s traditionally centrist elite as freshly relevant and inventive.

The Kashkari effect

Neel Kashkari, Republican candidate for governor, has positioned himself at the vanguard of these changes. He has done so in spite of his uphill battle against Democratic incumbent Gov. Jerry Brown.

As Andrew Romano argued at Yahoo News, Kashkari grabbed attention and credibility by doing the one thing the party’s previous two moderate-to-liberal candidates, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman, refused to do — define themselves as proud members of the Republican Party. While Schwarzenegger reveled in his maverick independence, and Whitman ran as a business-savvy outsider, Kashkari set out deliberately to eclipse the red-meat conservative wing of the California GOP and unite the party in a way calculated to grow the base.

“There’s no Republican nominee for anything in the country who has my features — or warts,” Kashkari told Romano. “I’ve demonstrated a model now in California.” Win or lose, Kashkari said, he plans to “stay active,” helping “rebuild the party and fix California.”

For Kashkari, that boils down to an almost exclusive focus on economic issues. But in a departure from the GOP talking points of yore, Kashkari’s definition of economic issues doesn’t center on taxes, but on jobs and education, which are widely perceived in California as the structural pillars of economic vitality.

Moving political goalposts

Traditionally, centrist California Republicans looked on jobs and education through the same pro-corporate, pro-business lens as they did taxes. Now, however, the public view of reform in those issue areas has shifted, giving Kashkari and other state Republicans a different, more powerful angle. Rather than depicting jobs and education as a means to grow productivity within the state’s biggest corporations, the California GOP has begun to describe the two dominant features of Democratic rule: the public pensions crisis and the Vergara ruling.

Vergara found that the state’s seniority-based union contracts violated the right to equal opportunity of the state’s disadvantaged students.

In the first case, job creation has ceased to be a conversation restricted to cutting taxes and incentivizing growth. Instead, it has folded into a broader argument about good governance.

Like Kashkari, Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin has faced an uphill climb in her bid for state controller against Democrat Betty Yee, a member of the Board of Equalization.

But Swearengin’s resume — guiding Fresno away from the fiscal abyss by standing up to public union abuses — has already helped to recast the state GOP. With so few other stars, Swearengin has had an outsized impact at a fortunate time. The Swearengin GOP has started to take shape as the party that would restore economic vitality by pruning back the tangled rot of public-sector patronage.

That message has been reinforced by Kashkari’s relentless campaign against Gov. Jerry Brown’s much-loved high-speed rail project. Rather than an engine for future prosperity, as Brown has claimed, Kashkari has presented the bullet train as a quintessential big-government boondoggle: expensive, yes, but even more importantly, a drain on resources, manpower and time.

Rather than simply campaigning against big budgets, Kashkari and Swearengin have worked to campaign against failing policies.

Local opportunities

California Republicans have also enjoyed a late-breaking uptick in political spending, driven by the same sense of pursuing key opportunities no matter how discouraging the big picture may be. In most cases, the gains have symbolic value that can be used to build momentum in the future.

In the redrawn 32nd state Senate district in Los Angeles County, for instance, termed-out and scandal-stricken state Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, inadvertently cleared a path for Republican challenger Mario Guerra. Guerra is running against Democrat Tony Mendoza, a former assemblyman. A GOP victory is crucial to keep Democrats from gaining back a 2/3 supermajority in the upper house.

As a result, the California GOP and donor Charles Munger Jr. have doubled their spending for Guerra, gaining $230,000 worth of television and mail advertising, according to the Sacramento Bee.

From a strategic standpoint, the investment would pay off by helping establish the Republican Party as an opportunity for a fresh start, free from corruption and business as usual.

In the East Bay’s 16th Assembly district, meanwhile, Republican Catharine Baker has pulled even with Dublin’s Democratic mayor, Tim Sbranti. As the Wall Street Journal noted, Baker’s candidacy has been fueled by public outrage over public pensions — and by the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle, which applauded her support of the Vergara decision.

That hasn’t been immediately evident from the frenetic activity surrounding his final month of campaigning. Using a string of concept-driven political stunts, ranging from free prizes to a masquerade as a homeless man, Kashkari has established a reputation for putting elbow grease into his run for governor.

Yet into the active effort and strident rhetoric Kashkari has added a relatively tongue-in-cheek approach to the uphill run before him. Unusual for a Republican trying to make a name in other states — but not so out of place in California — the combination of smarts, sarcasm and street hustle has inspired the media, if not Democrats, to take a closer look.

A new brand

Interest has swirled around whether Kashkari plausibly can portray a character that many have referenced but few have embodied — a “different kind of Republican,” as The Economist put it. Over the summer, some conservative stalwarts began to notice Kashkari’s recipe for change involved scrambling old battle lines, not simply moving to the progressive left or the pro-corporate center.

In a column hailing Kashkari, George Will depicted him as the heir to Barry Goldwater, who in 1964 famously lost in a landslide to President Lyndon Johnson — yet inspired a conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan president in 1980. “If California becomes a purple state and Democrats can no longer assume its 20 percent of 270 electoral votes, Republicans nationwide will be indebted to the immigrants’ son who plucked up Goldwater’s banner of conservatism with a Western libertarian flavor.”

Goldwater turned his electoral blowout into an opportunity to shift the national Republican Party. Kashkari’s underdog status has afforded a similar opportunity — and the political press has picked up on the strategy. Rather than offering the media a retread of tales of California Republicans’ past, Kashkari has presented a surprising spectacle. Wealthy political novices from business backgrounds, such as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, have tried to unseat top-tier Democrats before. They failed — leading national political journalists to question why the state GOP was willing to tolerate such a bad investment.

Kashkari, who is not personally short on cash, has raised a far more modest campaign chest. But his small budget has become a buzz-building advantage. Not only has it fueled the kind of stunt-driven campaigning that grabs headlines, it has given state Republicans a feeling that neither donors nor the party have thrown good money after bad. And it has changed the media narrative, differentiating Kashkari from the political losers who have come before him.

The shift hasn’t necessarily played well with Kashkari’s natural allies across the country — Republicans close to Wall Street. After hitting the stump for him in early summer, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie couldn’t find time to share the state with Kashkari in the election season’s final weeks. Rather than a personal slight, however, the decision was strictly business: Christie was dispatched by the Republican Governors Association to help put well-positioned candidates over the top.

West coast credentials

The absence of monied East Coast support isn’t really a disadvantage for Kashkari. Earlier in his primary campaign, he had to shake his political association with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP — the massive 2008 bailout program he was instrumental in designing and implementing under President George W. Bush. Kashkari seems to have determined that the West Coast — not Wall Street or his home state of Ohio — is the most hospitable territory for his brand of Republicanism.

Indeed, the swell of attention surrounding his approach has led some observers to suggest Kashkari could emerge from even a losing campaign as a powerful force in California Republican politics. Asked by the Santa Monica Mirror if he would consider a race for Senate in the years to come, Kashkari was blunt. “In all honesty, I’ve never ruled out any of those opportunities,” he said. Although, he added, he was “100 percent focused on November,” Mirror columnist Tom Elias placed his bet “on Kashkari starting right in on his next effort.”

And whereas he’s running against an incumbent this year, the next California U.S. Senate race is for the seat of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2016. Last month the Chronicle reported:

“Sen. Barbara Boxer says she has yet to make up her mind about seeking a fifth term in 2016, but there’s no shortage of signs that the Democrat may be opting out.

“It’s not just that she has less than $200,000 in her campaign account, compared with $3.5 million at this stage before her last election fight. Some comments from those who know the 73-year-old senator are also telling.

“‘She is not running for re-election,’ said one longtime Democratic fundraiser with deep ties to Boxer, who spoke only on background.”

Of course, she still might run. But if she retires, the open field, combined with Kashkari’s experience with this year’s campaign, could give him a big leg up in 2016.

The same thing with Gov. Jerry Brown’s re-election campaign chest of $23.6 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. But which he isn’t spending, according to the Chronicle, because “he’s conducting one of the most unusual re-election campaigns ever witnessed by state voters — one in which he hasn’t starred in a single TV or radio spot, campaign mailer, or Web video.” And he spent just $132,000 in July, August and September.

So, might as well have some fun and let “What happens in Vegas stay in Vegas.”

Meanwhile, Republican opponent Neil Kashkari, who is running at only about 40 percent in polls, holds “about $680,000 in the bank, with $142,000 in unpaid bills.” On the positive side for Kashkari, in 2010 Republican Meg Whitman blew $180 million of her own dough against Brown, and also finished with just 41 percent. So Neel’s votes will cost about 1/180th that of Meg’s.

What will Brown will do with all that campaign moolah he doesn’t spend? Probably not Vegas. Probably another city to the East. Do I hear a special tune?

At issue: How to recover their footing in the wake of Judge Rolf Treu’s far-reaching ruling in the Vergara case, which found California’s current teacher tenure system to be a violation of students’ constitutional rights.

Although Brown has maintained a strong lead in his bid for reelection against Republican Neel Kashkari, education has become a new focal point in the race. Kashkari, recognizing the issue combines an unusual weakness for Brown with an unusually broad relevance for voters, has hit on the theme repeatedly, taking Brown to task for appealing Treu’s ruling to a higher court.

In a rare opportunity to confront Brown directly in front of television cameras, Kashkari hammered away on education during the recent gubernatorial debate. Brown stumbled, vowing he’d do more if current laws didn’t address problems in the classroom.

Although the tussle may not change the fundamental dynamic of the race, Brown’s frustration has underscored how much the education issue matters to him on the level of personal politics. As a result, actions he has taken will reverberate well beyond November.

A flood of bills

Among a wave of last-minute bills to pass the Legislature and hit his desk, Brown singled out several affecting schools. One bill, which Brown touted in his debate exchange with Kashkari, made it easier to fire teachers implicated in lewd conduct. After vetoing a version he called flawed, Brown signed Assembly Bill 215, put forward by Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo.

Recently, Brown made a point to push his education agenda further. AB1584 and SB1177 will work in tandem to crack down on the misuse of data collected from students, schools and school districts.

AB1584 also was authored by Buchanan. Its aim is to ensure school districts keep ownership of data collected from students by information-gathering companies. It complements SB1177, by state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. That bill bars data companies from profiting off of such information.

Perhaps the most notable reform came courtesy of AB420, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento. It will change the way schools can mete out the severest punishment to students. Going forward, as Jurist reported, schools will be prohibited “from suspending students without proving the pupil willfully defied teachers and administrators. The bill specifically eliminates schools’ authority to suspend pupils from kindergarten through third grade and the authority to expel a student from kindergarten through twelfth grade.”

As yet, not much has been made of the political implications of AB420. Brown’s signature on the bill, however, has provided Democrats with an unusual way of appealing to the populist instincts on the rise among parents statewide.

Conservative and libertarian critics of teachers unions frequently have cast blame on school administrations, not just classroom educators. Administrative bureaucracies, they have claimed, are often as meddlesome and arbitrary in a school district as they are in state and federal government.

Parents, for their part, long have cast a skeptical eye at the changing standards by which students are punished. High-profile controversies have repeatedly arisen around student clothing and perceived threats of violence.

The bigger picture

Brown’s efforts to regain the momentum on education have figured into more than a personal mission for restored credibility. Whether he succeeds or fails will color the larger debate surrounding Democrats’ competence and dependability on the issue.

Democrats themselves have become sharply divided in the wake of the Vergara ruling. The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, officially a nonpartisan contest, has pitted Democrat against Democrat, with incumbent Tom Torlakson facing a stiff challenge from Marshall Tuck.

Their disagreement on Vergara — Torlakson is a staunch union ally — has exacerbated longstanding divisions among prominent Democrats. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, for instance, supported Tuck, while current Mayor Eric Garcetti sided with Torlakson.

Whatever the results of the election, afterward the intra-party Democratic feud over education will be one of the biggest topics confronting Brown and the new Legislature.